WASHINGTON, June 20, 2008
House OKs Warrantless Wiretapping Bill
Senate Is Also Expected To Approve Measure Providing Protection For Telecoms
-
Photo
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive
Domestic Surveillance
The debate over the Bush administration's controversial wiretapping program.
The bill, which was passed on a 293-129 vote, does more than just protect the telecoms. The update to the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is an attempt to balance privacy rights with the government's responsibility to protect the country against attack, taking into account changes in telecommunications technologies.
"This bill, though imperfect, protects both," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., and a former member of the intelligence committee.
President Bush praised the bill Friday. "It will help our intelligence professionals learn enemies' plans for new attacks," he said in a statement before television cameras a few hours before the vote.
The House's passage of the FISA Amendment bill marks the beginning of the end to a monthslong standoff between Democrats and Republicans about the rules for government wiretapping inside the United States. The Senate was expected to pass the bill with a large margin, perhaps as soon as next week, before Congress takes a break during the week of the Fourth of July.
The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years after the Sept. 11 attacks without permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the 1978 law. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the telecommunications companies by groups and individuals who think the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails.
The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies.
The compromise bill directs a federal district court to review certifications from the attorney general saying the telecommunications companies received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. If the paperwork were deemed in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit.
It would also require the inspectors general of the Justice Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies to investigate the wiretapping program, with a report due in a year.
Quote
Critics of the bill say dismissal is a foregone conclusion.What we have here is the opportunity for the government to commit mass untargeted surveillance.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Tex."These provisions turn the judiciary into the administration's rubber stamp," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. She opposes the bill.
Opponents of immunity believe civil lawsuits are the only way the full extent of the wiretapping program will ever be revealed.
Key senators voiced strong opposition to the compromise, although they're unlikely to have the votes to either defeat or filibuster the bill. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, condemned the immunity deal. He said that nothing in the new bill would prevent the government from once again wiretapping domestic phone and computer lines without court permission.
Specter said the problem is constitutional: The White House may still assert that the president's Article II powers as commander in chief supersede statutes that would limit him actions.
"Only the courts can decide that issue and this proposal dodges it," Specter said.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California disputed that, saying FISA would from now on be the authority for the government to conduct electronic surveillance.
"There is no inherent authority of the president to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy, not a monarchy," she said.
Some civil liberties and privacy groups are also opposing the bill. They object not only to the immunity provision but to what they consider the weakening of the FISA court's oversight of government eavesdropping. For example, the government can initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost. It has a week to file the request for approval with the court, and the court has 30 days to act on it. But if the court objects to how the government is carrying out the wiretap, it could be weeks before those methods are changed or stopped.
"What we have here is the opportunity for the government to commit mass untargeted surveillance," said Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.
Opponents also contend the privacy of Americans who communicate with people overseas is not adequately protected. The bill would allow the government to tap the foreigner's calls without court approval, and critics contend that innocent American conversations can be swept up in that.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment bill also would:
The new FISA bill, if it became law, would expire in 2012.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from U.S.
-
Video
Obama Wishes Happy 4th
-
Video
Thanks To Teddy
-
Video
National Mall Needs Work
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 168 Commentshttp://www.echelonwatch.org/
Posted by CZMDM
Dimnowits trash the Constitution on a daily basis. Courts are their greatest allies. Don''t give us that Repubs trash *****. Bush did the right thing. The Dimnowits only look out for themselves and if you think they care about the people you are as stupid as can be. Their only concern is amassing power so trump the will of the people. Dimnowits the Constitution lives and breathes.
You guys stink! It''s looking more and more like there''s nothing left to vote for!
How is giving immunity to telecons who breached their contracts with customers essential to U.S. security.
More like essential to the security of law-breaking corporate fatcats and the politicians like Hoyer who receive their largesse.
Well we can always count on Dianne to be a sheep in wolf''s clothing.
Thanks for the nice comment you left me on the "feet" site.:)
Kick ALL of THEM OUT and bring in new people.
The Old Guard Democrat and Republican need their collective butts sent home and retired if this scandalous bill passes.
They want the same surveillance tools and the same war budget for Iraq and Afghanistan (approved for most of 2009 yesterday) as Pres. Bush has had. Most of their shouting was to placate the sophomoric wing of their own party.
Epitaph.
We the people in order to destroy a more perfect nation; have complacently depleted both sprit and intent of our democracy dreams and Live Free or Die principles.
Modern 21st century American political ideology seems so tawdry when compared to dynamic foresight and life long toil of original visionary political architects that forged this nation from humble beginnings.
We as Citizens must share the blame, since we tolerated a gradual transgression toward total authoritarianism.
A form of social control characterized by strict obedience to authority of a state or organization, often maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive measures.
Authoritarian regimes are generally considered to be highly hierarchical.
In an authoritarian form of government, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many matters that other political philosophies would see as erosion of civil liberties and freedom.
Usually, an authoritarian government is undemocratic and has the power to govern without consent of those being governed.
Let citizens vote on issues via national referendums, once we decide on a course of action; elected government officials should carry out work to execute and manage a policy within publicly approved parameters.
Since tax payers are paying the bills, elected politicians require citizen supervision.
No one is above the law and no one should get immunity including and especially the Bush administration.
If the Congress passes the bills and the President signs into law, and there are no objections from the Supreme Court...IT''S CONSTITUTIONAL.
Get over it already.
Posted by dragonwagon5 at 01:08 PM : Jun 20, 2008
And the liberals say Republicans are fear-mongers.
Tsk, tsk.
They want the same surveillance tools and the same war budget for Iraq and Afghanistan (approved for most of 2009 yesterday) as Pres. Bush has had. Most of their shouting was to placate the sophomoric wing of their own party."
Posted by secundus2 at 12:46 PM : Jun 20, 2008
Exactly right, secondus2!
The Dems are suddenly morphing into a completely different creature, and the far-left are going to be very, very upset about it.
Posted by dragonwagon5 at 01:15 PM : Jun 20, 2008
Go ahead. Stay unemployed.
Posted by singingrick
No one is above the law. Does that include the Judiciary? Does that include terrorists?
Posted by Impeach_W
What you need is a psychiatrist!
Posted by mudrose at 01:19 PM
YES!!! TORTURE THEM ALL!!
Posted by dragonwagon5
WITH ABSOLUTE PLEASURE!
If the Congress passes the bills and the President signs into law, and there are no objections from the Supreme Court...IT''''''''S CONSTITUTIONAL.
Get over it already.
Posted by One-American at 01:05 PM
Really? Then you must be a strong supporter of Income taxes.
In this matter, they have shown the same lack of moral terpitude displayed regurlarly by the Repubs.
Absolutely disgusting....
Wonder why the democRAT congress went along?? Could it be because they were all full of B$ all along?
Don''t get me wrong.....I''m ''tingled'' that they did the right thing, for once.
Posted by LibH8er at 01:38 PM : Jun 20, 2008
Then you''re onw who prefers to see criminals go unpunished.
Previously, all the president needed to do was go ahead and wiretap without a warrant and then go to FISA to get a warrant which can be retroactive. Instead, the president did what he wanted and had his lackey Alberto Gonzales put his stamp of approval on it.
What this bill does is invalidate any laws that the president is bound by. Instead, he can do anything he wants and the house deals with it later by submitting bills retroactive to now to excuse the president from any wrongdoing.
Way to go ELECTED representatives. Totally sick... very very sick.
Terrible retribution is exactly what we need here and soon!!
What you need is a psychiatrist!
Those are great words from a great man.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote: "The government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by example%u2026 To declare that the end justifies the means - to declare that the government may commit crimes - would bring terrible retribution."
I already have A Psychology degree but thx for the advice, What I need are some patriotic Americans to show some fools how not to run a country.
Follow the payoffs...
Como?????
Regrettably, United States government and politics may now be closer to the Republic of Zimbabwe notion than we know.
Compromise bill?
Only tenet indisputably compromised was U.S. Constitution.
Decision: Olmstead v. United States (1928)
Search & Seizure and Privacy
In 1934 Congress enacted a statute which made wiretapping unlawful. However, the federal agency charged with enforcing federal law, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, made no attempt to enforce it. In 1968, domestic wiretapping was authorized, but only when permitted by a judge and under specific conditions.
Brandeis'' dissent has formed the foundation for civil-libertarian arguments in all cases involving privacy since this decision was handed down.
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government%u2019s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
For once Mudnose is right. Pelosi IS a ho.
Posted by impeach_W
So who was Brandeis talking about? Nancy Pewlosi?
Stasiland: True Stories from Behind the Berlin Wall.
By Anna Funder
London: Granta, 2003.
ISBN 1862075808
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 168 Comments